Yanmar 4JH4-TE owners

[DennisDW]

'Time to retire the perkins 4-154. I could go down a few HP and use the non-turbo 4JH53E or up a few and use the 4JH4-TE. My knowledge of turbo diesels suggest that they would perform much better in a power boat without the restriction of a water lift muffler. I have a sailboat with the usual elevated loops and lift muffler.

Any experience with this? I'd think Yanmar would have this figured out since the turbo is suggested for sail applications.

Thanks all,
Dennis

[goboatingnow]

The issue you describe is back pressure and yes turbo engines tend to have tighter specs. But with small low mass turbos common on most diesels nowadays it doesn't really matter as much anymore.

Turbos are as reliable as the engine they are installed on these days. Many sailboats have turbo diesels in them.

Dave

[noelex 77]

I fited a new engine a few years ago and went or the non turbo version. The turbo is an extra system to go wrong and maintain.
In talking to fellow crusing sailors turbo problems come probably second on the list ( after cooling/ heat exchanger problems which seem to be the most common)
Many of the mechanics and workshops in out of the way places are not equipped to manage turbo problems.

[Chuteman]

Not knowing the weight of your boat in question, engine footprint, etc
plus intended use(s) - sailing/motoring area(s)- projected hrs @ yr
Might be a good idea to bounce it off the local Yanmar dealer just to hear what they would recommend - new and older models

Have one less thing to worry about - Turbo is always a good thing but not a show stopper, preventative maintenance should help minimize potential issues.

[TOM]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I fited a new engine a few years ago and went or the non turbo version. The turbo is an extra system to go wrong and maintain.
In talking to fellow crusing sailors turbo problems come probably second on the list ( after cooling/ heat exchanger problems which seem to be the most common)
Many of the mechanics and workshops in out of the way places are not equipped to manage turbo problems.

i installed a 4JH4TE two and a half years ago and could not be happier . We have done over 2000 hours and have not had one single problem nor have i heard of anyone having a problem with the turbo. Turbo motors are not like they were 10 years ago they are reliable ,lightweight and economical .You can check out the install on our website www.byamee.com

[Cheechako]

There were two threads regarding turbo issues last year. It's a fact that turbo cars wear out sooner. Dont know about diesel's. Wouldnt be a show stopper to me, but I would prefer toward naturally aspirated.

[SeaKing]

turbo=more expensive parts to buy

[TOM]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

There were two threads regarding turbo issues last year. It's a fact that turbo cars wear out sooner. Dont know about diesel's. Wouldnt be a show stopper to me, but I would prefer toward naturally aspirated.

Turbo charged cars are probably driven harder,even so there are many old reliable turbo cars still on the road . The subaru WRX with its boxer turbo engine is very reliable as are many others. I owned a Turbo Pajero for 9 years never missed a beat .

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by TOM

i installed a 4JH4TE two and a half years ago and could not be happier . We have done over 2000 hours and have not had one single problem nor have i heard of anyone having a problem with the turbo. Turbo motors are not like they were 10 years ago they are reliable ,lightweight and economical .You can check out the install on our website www.byamee.com

Turbo motors on smaller sailboats are resonably new so most problems I have seen are on,at least, reasonably modern engines. There are few turbo engines on sailboats much more than 10-15 years old.
I think one of the major differences is the high number of engine hours you do.The high horsepower, light weight and good fuel economy of a turbo diesel are particarly appealing under these circumstances. My engine hours per year are less than 10% of yours so my priorities for an engine are also different.

[TOM]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Turbo motors on smaller sailboats are resonably new so most problems I have seen are on,at least, reasonably modern engines. There are few turbo engines on sailboats much more than 10-15 years old.
I think one of the major differences is the high number of engine hours you do.The high horsepower, light weight and good fuel economy of a turbo diesel are particarly appealing under these circumstances. My engine hours per year are less than 10% of yours so my priorities for an engine are also different.

I'm not sure that i understand why the no of hours per year should have any bearing on whether one should go turbo or not. Surely light weight and good fuel economy are a priority whether you are going out once a month or like us are living on board.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by TOM

I'm not sure that i understand why the no of hours per year should have any bearing on whether one should go turbo or not. Surely light weight and good fuel economy are a priority whether you are going out once a month or like us are living on board.

I cruise (and live) full time on the boat, but sail much more than I motor.
My priorities in a boat motor are reliability ease of service. A boat that motors more of the time, may consider maximum power, speed under motor rather than sail, and fuel economy to be more important.

With my non turbo engine my cruising speed under motor is 7-7.5 K. With a larger turbo motor and appropriate prop I would gain a small amount of crusing speed under motor( maybe 0.25 -0.5K) and a small improvement in fuel economy (5%?). A boat motoring 10x more than i do and sailing less would find this improvement under motor a more attractive compromise for the added complexity of the turbo.

[lrclough]

I am also evaluating a repower of the Westerbeke 58, a similar engine due to the increasing unavailablity of parts for that engine from Westerbeke.

The problem with the Yanmar is the 3" exhaust hose requirement. My yard advises that Yanmar will not honor the warranty if any smaller hose is installed.

Hence I am looking at the naturally aspirated Beta 60.

[Bash]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

I fited a new engine a few years ago and went or the non turbo version. The turbo is an extra system to go wrong and maintain.

I used to feel exactly the same as noelex about turbos. Then, for better or worse, I was forced to buy a turbo with my current boat because it needed a larger diesel than the previous boat, and the larger diesels need to be turbo-charged to meet emissions standards here in California.

I'm happy to report that I've changed my religion, and would never go back. My 4JH3-TE is far quieter than the normally aspirated Yanmar I had on the last boat. That old diesel rattle is gone. The engine, even though I've gone from 50hp to 76hp, gives off far less of the diesel smell.

I'm aware that I have to treat the turbo better than I treated non-turbo engines. Most important, I need to allow it a cool down period that the old engine didn't really need. However, this is a price I willingly pay for a quieter, less smelly, more fuel-efficient engine.

[noelex 77]

Originally Posted by Bash

I used to feel exactly the same as noelex about turbos. Then, for better or worse, I was forced to buy a turbo with my current boat because it needed a larger diesel than the previous boat, and the larger diesels need to be turbo-charged to meet emissions standards here in California.

I'm happy to report that I've changed my religion, and would never go back. My 4JH3-TE is far quieter than the normally aspirated Yanmar I had on the last boat. That old diesel rattle is gone. The engine, even though I've gone from 50hp to 76hp, gives off far less of the diesel smell.

I'm aware that I have to treat the turbo better than I treated non-turbo engines. Most important, I need to allow it a cool down period that the old engine didn't really need. However, this is a price I willingly pay for a quieter, less smelly, more fuel-efficient engine.

I think turbocharging does help sound levels. A 75 HP turbo engine will be quieter than a larger normally aspirated 75 HP engine of the same number of cylinders, but my experience has been that it is still a bit louder than a normally aspirated engine of the same displacement, and therefore lower power. ( so the 54 and 75 HP Yanmar engines that are very similar other than the turbocharger I would have expected the 54 to be slightly quieter. it is so dependent on installation it's hard to come to firm conclusions.
The picture is further complicated if you compare a normally aspirated larger displacement engine with more cylinders with a turbocharged smaller displacement engine of less cylinders. The reduced vibration in the former engine often makes it a quieter choice.
I have never noticed any difference in diesel smell between turbo and normally aspirated engines and I suspect this is just instalation and age of the engine, but maybe someone can come up with a reason why the diesel smell should be less with a turbo.

[Chuteman]

Originally Posted by Bash

I'm aware that I have to treat the turbo better than I treated non-turbo engines. Most important, I need to allow it a cool down period that the old engine didn't really need. However, this is a price I willingly pay for a quieter, less smelly, more fuel-efficient engine.

Years ago when turbos were becoming more widespread in cars, giving a turbo cooling off time before shutting down the engine was urged by mfgs but often ignored by car owners with resulting shortened life.

Wonder as time has gone on how much Cooling Off is emphasized by mfgs or followed by owners like yourself

Agree, would not bother me either (if I ever have one) as I also think it is a good idea even for a normally aspirated engine especially after a really hard run.